The Division Bench held that Panaji police illegally handcuffed and paraded accused [name withheld] and a Taleigao man through Taleigao on 28-6-2003 without magisterial permission and in knowing violation of the Supreme Court's Citizens for Democracy directions. The court rejected the officers' hideout-panchanama justification as a sham, holding the parading was done only to humiliate the accused in violation of Article 21. It directed the State to pay Rs 15,000 compensation to each victim with a compliance report in six weeks, ordered disciplinary proceedings against the three respondent officers completed within six months with liberty to recover, and made the Rule absolute with Rs 5,000 costs. Matters not addressed in the cited judgment text are not recorded here.
This page documents a court-adjudicated case from the judgment and cited sources below. Findings are attributed to the court; this record does not add findings of its own.
How verification works →By judgment dated 6 March 2006 in Criminal Writ Petition No. 19 of 2003, the Bombay High Court (Coram: R. M. S. Khandeparkar, N. A. Britto, JJ.) returned findings adverse to 3 police personnel, namely: Police Inspector, Panaji Police Station; Police Sub-Inspector, Panaji Police Station (IO, Crime No. 96/03); Police Sub-Inspector, Goa Police, and directed payment of compensation of Rs 30,000.
Compiled from the judgment and the cited sources. Findings are those of the court; this card adds none of its own.
The Bombay High Court judgment dated 6 March 2006 is the concluded position shown in the cited sources.
Reliable material supports a specifically documented fact relevant to that allegation, not necessarily the full allegation, causation, intent, unlawfulness, or responsibility.
Official finding: supports allegation.
Holding not recorded separately.
“The explanations for handcuffing given are nothing but a sham and are only excuses put forward on behalf of respondent nos. 4 to 6 in order to justify the handcuffing of the said two accused inspite of knowing fully well …” (para 16)
The Bombay High Court recorded adverse findings against police personnel and ordered Rs 30,000.
(Round-8 full re-verification: published record re-checked against the judgment text (outcome, officers, quote, key facts) plus methodology-compliance pass; skills-guided adversarial re-verification of the published record against the judgment text (reverify/t1-*/adversarial-8.jsonl))
Corrections (0): No corrections recorded.
Review: Solo Staff combined review (one combined attestation) — not yet recorded.
These records are listed together because they share a state or a topic. That does not mean they are connected.
